• Welcome to the Lightroom Queen Forums! We're a friendly bunch, so please feel free to register and join in the conversation. If you're not familiar with forums, you'll find step by step instructions on how to post your first thread under Help at the bottom of the page. You're also welcome to download our free Lightroom Quick Start eBooks and explore our other FAQ resources.
  • Stop struggling with Lightroom! There's no need to spend hours hunting for the answers to your Lightroom Classic questions. All the information you need is in Adobe Lightroom Classic - The Missing FAQ!

    To help you get started, there's a series of easy tutorials to guide you through a simple workflow. As you grow in confidence, the book switches to a conversational FAQ format, so you can quickly find answers to advanced questions. And better still, the eBooks are updated for every release, so it's always up to date.
  • 25 June 2024 It's Lightroom update time again! See What’s New in Lightroom Classic 13.4, Mobile & Desktop (June 2024)? for the bug fixes and new lens profiles. Warning... this is a minor dot release and does NOT fix some of the bugs introduced in 13.3, so if you reverted to 13.2 due to bugs (e.g. sync issues), we'd suggest you stay there for now.

Develop module Developing RAW vs TIFF

rebop

Active Member
Premium Classic Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
330
Location
Northborough, MA
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
6.x
Lightroom Version Number
13
Operating System
  1. Windows 10
I've mentioned this several times, but I feel that opening a Canon RAW image in Digital Photo Professional and saving as a 16 bit TIFF (did not test 8 bit tiff) then importing into LRc gets better results than importing the RAW CR3 file into LRc and editing.

To be honest, the results were not as dramatic as I had thought after exporting to JPG so I can post and share. The difference is more obvious in LRc. BUT, still noticeable here and I do prefer the TIFF. Though the files are MUCH bigger, of course. No idea how much difference will be seen here after the upload process.

Thought worthwhile to share and perhaps discuss.

The first from RAW, second from TIFF:

1 RAW.jpg
1 TIFF.jpg
2 RAW.jpg
2 TIFF.jpg
3 RAW.jpg
3 TIFF.jpg
 
I don't see a noticable difference between the TIFF an the CR2 files. The workflow is more efficient if you import into LrC and then learn to edit the RAW image to your desired result then to Edit in DPP, Export to TIFF, the Import to LrC and edit the TIFF
 
I axctually do see a diofference, Clee. And I cannot get an identical result with CR3. Maybe I will learn to, who knows.
Right now trying the 8 bit tiff.
 
What you or others see on your screen will be dictated by the size, quality and accuracy of your monitor profile.
As an example I am viewing your images on my iPad and I cannot discerned any visible differences in the images.
What are we viewing a screen capture from your screen?
 
You are viewing exported jpgs from LRc. I would never post a screen capture to illustrate an image difference.

My montior is calibrated high end. I do see differences. Pink shirt wrinkles. Purple boots. Many other small details. Some skin tone on rear musician. Though as I said, I do see more differences in the CR3 and TIFF before jpg export, as I suspect I should.

Just tried 8 bit TIFF. I see no difference between the 8 and 16 Bits.

No worries. I thought this might be interesting to this group. I think I shall reserve 8 bit for special keep[ers - that one out of 100 in a shoot.
 
You are viewing exported jpgs from LRc. I would never post a screen capture to illustrate an image difference.

My montior is calibrated high end. I do see differences. Pink shirt wrinkles. Purple boots. Many other small details. Some skin tone on rear musician. Though as I said, I do see more differences in the CR3 and TIFF before jpg export, as I suspect I should.

Just tried 8 bit TIFF. I see no difference between the 8 and 16 Bits.

No worries. I thought this might be interesting to this group. I think I shall reserve 8 bit for special keep[ers - that one out of 100 in a shoot.
So long as you keep the original raw file, you can do as you wish if you think that you get different results that you prefer. But it does come with a tradeoff in editing, and so as long as that is not impacting your workflow, there is little downside for you at this time.

--Ken
 
Looking at this (on a Mac with Apple Studio Display with default calibration) i can totally see a difference.

The second picture is sharper, better details / contrast and a slight different white balance hue tone.
The skin tone on the first image (girl playing guitar) is more "yellowish" with a green undertone, on the second one the skin tone is more natural ("pinkish"/neutral)
 
Looking at this (on a Mac with Apple Studio Display with default calibration) i can totally see a difference.

The second picture is sharper, better details / contrast and a slight different white balance hue tone.
The skin tone on the first image (girl playing guitar) is more "yellowish" with a green undertone, on the second one the skin tone is more natural ("pinkish"/neutral)

Thank you!!!!

Was beginning to wonder with no one else seeing. And it is a bit more intense looking at the original before jpg exports. There are some images I think will warrant the extra effort. Not these. But these were the most current I had in my working folder.
 
BTW, another good thing about this thread is I am getting immediate notifications in email of new replies. A first for me and this forum :)
 
I did a more critical look at the images and can see some subtle differences, but I also believe that these reflect just a bit more contrast and/or saturation. I consider these changes quite small and easily adjustable and feel they are probably changes that I would normally consider when developing an image. Then again, for the most part I am not editing large numbers of images in batches where speed and consistency are important.

--Ken
 
You cannot expect and will never get identical results, because you are using a different raw engine for the demosaicing when you convert to tiff in DPP. To me the differences would be too small to justify such a detour, and I think it should be possible to get the results even closer by carefully looking at those differences and then think about how you could adjust that in Lightroom.
 
I also see differences (just looking at the initial set of two photos). The first one definitely has more saturated yellows, but I'm not sure that this is a white balance issue since the neutral tones and blues look pretty much the same to me. The second photo appears to have stronger contrast. The second image looks slightly sharper, but that may just be due to the stronger contrast.

I wouldn't say that I find one is "better" than the other. And pretty much everything is adjustable (and you haven't told us what adjustments have been made as part of the import process).
 
OK, no adjustments made on the import process for either the TIFF or the RAW.

I do not think I can duplicate results. Truly. So just did another, likely my last experiment. Here I took the TIFF in 8 bit and developed to taste. I then took an unprocess raw and copied the tiff develop settings to the raw. VERY different. EVERY slider is the same with the exceetions of TEMP nd Tint as the color profile on the imported TIFF changes those sliders to a different scale. Which brings up the question (maybe again) that when I was doing this before LRc and was using LR 6, the tiffs came in with an embedded profile. Now they come in with a COLOR profile and those two sliders are different. Must be the change in LRc color profiules from LR 6 as DPP has not changed for me and still exports as before, even with embedded ICC profile selected. Regardless, I stil prefer the TIFF for better develop. And I cannot duplicate the tiff results in the raw. Maybe you can. Don't know.

So 1 is from RAW, 2 from TIF and the third was a new import from DPP developed as if for the first time to my taste. (my preferred image -but not cropped)

develop compare-1.jpg
develop compare-2.jpg
Saved from develop-1.jpg


OK, I think I am done experimenting.
 
I see the differences in the pictures as well. But I would be happy to work with both versions and do the adjustments to my liking. I wouldn't consider the additional step worthwhile. If you want/or have to use the Denoise AI you would have to start with LR.

For me there is one case where I use DPP and that is focus stacking. From the small number of tests I did, I found that I liked the results from DPP over Helicon or Zerene. Will continue my testing as I have a trial for the later two packages running at the moment. One caveat is that DPP is slow compared to the other two. A stack of 19 images took 5 - 6 minutes in DPP on a one year old mac.
 
OK, also conbfirmed today the the new Process Verion in LRc changes the previous EMBEDDED to COLOR and limits the usefullness of White Balance. Not a deal breaker, but a let down. Once again. I will use this but for the real keepers. I do think DPP demosaics a little better.

Thanks for the feedback all.
 
OK, also conbfirmed today the the new Process Verion in LRc changes the previous EMBEDDED to COLOR and limits the usefullness of White Balance. Not a deal breaker, but a let down. Once again. I will use this but for the real keepers. I do think DPP demosaics a little better.

Thanks for the feedback all.
I am sorry, but I am not following your use of "embedded". In post #13 you were referring to embedded with respect to ICC color profiles. Can you elaborate on your post above, especially with respect to the changes limiting the usefulness of White Balance?

Thanks,

--Ken
 
OK.

Older process: This where I thought the "embedded" was being picked up by the embedeedd ICC profile in the exported TIFF file.

1.JPG


Newer Process with exported TIFF from DPP:

2.JPG


Standard RAW Import:

3.JPG


I was sure I have examples of older process - Embedded and with WB TEMP in Kelvin but did not easily find one now. The imprted TIF WB does not work as well as the standard WB with TEMPscaled in Kelvin for me.

Hope this clears that up and sorry for not being more clear.
 
I may be wrong, so please indicate if I am, but it sounds like you don’t think the RAW converter in LrC works as well as the one in Digital Photo Professional. If so you may want to play around with other converters including the ACR in PS.

As others have suggested, what you have is not the end but the beginning of the workflow so any minimal difference is mute IMHO.
 
I think the converter in DPP is slightly better than the one in LRc. At least I find it easier to work with to get my best results.

And I disagree it is mute. Totally disagree. I could take both images and NEVER get them to look identical. And more power to you if you can. But I think that is wishful thinking rather than demonstrable fact. IMHO :)
 
I think the converter in DPP is slightly better than the one in LRc. At least I find it easier to work with to get my best results.

And I disagree it is mute. Totally disagree. I could take both images and NEVER get them to look identical. And more power to you if you can. But I think that is wishful thinking rather than demonstrable fact. IMHO :)
While many would like their raw converters to just give them an ideal image in just one step, I am not sure how reasonable that is since it is the beginning of the process and not the end. I can understand that you prefer a different converter, but then I would ask why you have not chosen it as your primary software? That is not to say that LRC's ACR is perfect, but it does put you at a reasonable starting point. If you are having challenges moving forward from that point, then maybe a bit more time with the controls in the Develop may be in order until you are comfortable with how they can alter a raw file? I have been using LR since v.1 and am still on a constant learning curve since I do not spend every day in front of it like some folks do. But I have mastered the Develop module enough for my basic needs, and I do not find these small adjustments a big issue when editing. If these differences are significant enough to frustrate you, then you are going to have a long and bumpy road ahead with LRC unless you bypass the Develop module and just use the Library.

--Ken
 
While many would like their raw converters to just give them an ideal image in just one step, I am not sure how reasonable that is since it is the beginning of the process and not the end

Neither what I am looking for nor what I said or described.

Why not primary, because LRc is MUCH more feature rich.

So, this is no longer fun. Waaaay off subject with suggestionms off topic. I specified a certain funtion I preferred in DPP, provided examples and it seems to be devolving into a religious war, exaggerations and not invented here. Never asked for one click, never praised ANYTHING about DPP other than the converter. And never denegrated LRc. Said I prefer it slightly and find this convertor easier to get to MY desired end result. I ahve not found one LIghtroom Profile I find a great starting point. And they are much more difficult FOR ME to get to my desiured end result.

And I have been using LR since 1.o as well Ken. No newbie here.

No fun... Buh bye. Unsubscribing.
 
While many would like their raw converters to just give them an ideal image in just one step, I am not sure how reasonable that is since it is the beginning of the process and not the end

Neither what I am looking for nor what I said or described.

Why not primary, because LRc is MUCH more feature rich.

So, this is no longer fun. Waaaay off subject with suggestionms off topic. I specified a certain funtion I preferred in DPP, provided examples and it seems to be devolving into a religious war, exaggerations and not invented here. Never asked for one click, never praised ANYTHING about DPP other than the converter. And never denegrated LRc. Said I prefer it slightly and find this convertor easier to get to MY desired end result. I ahve not found one LIghtroom Profile I find a great starting point. And they are much more difficult FOR ME to get to my desiured end result.

And I have been using LR since 1.o as well Ken. No newbie here.

No fun... Buh bye. Unsubscribing.
I am sorry and apologize if my reply sounded harsh as that was not my intention at all. I can understand calling out the differences between raw converters, but I guess I was not really understanding what you wanted in response to calling this out. Several of us acknowledged the differences that you saw. And I did say that you should do what works for you. But you again said that LRC was not not giving you what you wanted, and I, like several others, tried to offer some suggestions based on our work flows. People in the forum tend to try and assist when folks post that they are not liking what they get from LR/LRC so again I apologize if you were not looking for assistance and it was offered.

--Ken
 
I think the converter in DPP is slightly better than the one in LRc. At least I find it easier to work with to get my best results.
I believe Canon uses the term "Picture styles" to define in camera JPEG settings to develop the JPEG from the RAW data. This setting (Portrait, Neutral, Fine Detail, Landscape etc) is chosen by the user before the photo is composed and before the exposure settings are set. DPP uses this setting to produce the identical RGB image from the CR2 files as the In camera processor does to create the JPEG. Adobe and other RAW conversions do not have the same development algorithms that Canon uses and have reverse engineered these to mimic the "Camera..." named profiles seen in the Basic panel. This is why you will see slight differences in the appearance of a TIFF produced by DPP and the equivalent TIFF produced by LrC.
 
Back
Top